EDIT: Actually, scratch that comment. Instead I will ask you a question. Do you understand that when someone asks questions that are repeatedly deflected or ignored, that that may have an effect on how they will respond to the person they perceive as stalling?

I'll try to improve, but I can say that there are never questions you ask that are uncomfortable to me because I'm afraid of some truth, it's that I can't think of how to answer it. The coorelation causation thing is important in you need to go through some logical progression that I'm having trouble applying to the reports of the supernatural. I may catch on to you needs, if you will concede that logic has its limits in the supernatural.

What it comes down to Wayne is that I asked you to answer a simple and direct question. You are still not doing it - despite the fact that I am working hard on answering a specific question that YOU have asked. Why is it so hard for you to answer my question and define what you understand by the terms in use?

Wayne, when you talk about the supernatural, what do you mean? How do you define it?

The reason I ask is because it sounds like you're using it to refer to things which you can't explain. However, that's not a very good definition, because it changes depending on who's using it. So I'd like you to define it more precisely so that other people can know what you mean by it.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

The coorelation causation thing is important in you need to go through some logical progression that I'm having trouble applying to the reports of the supernatural.

This sentence concerns me. It concerns me because the definitions of causation and correlation could apply quite happily to something in the "supernatural". Neither term specifically requires the inputs to be purely natural, if the supernatural is part of your worldview. Which leads me to believe that you do not actually understand the difference between the two terms.

It's why I have asked you - over and over - to simply define what you understand the two terms to mean, and to explain how you would differentiate between the two.

Apologies, I'm still not quite clear - I can read your response both ways. I'll rephrase: did what you "saw" in the vision appear to be actually happening in front of you, NO or did you perceive it at the time as being internal to your mind? YES Could you still see the real world while the vision played out in your head, or did the vision overrule the real world while it was happening? I was looking at eggs, without thinking of eggs.

Was the vision from a static point of view? YES Was your sightline locked during the vision,YES or was it as if your head was moving while it happened?NO

I'm guessing from what you've said about "staring into your eggs" that it was an entirely internal vision that did not overwhelm the real world - that you were (as it were) "lost in thought" in the same way as if recalling a particularly vivid memory? KIND OFHow real did the vision feel when you were having it? not real, .......LIKE A DREAM.

When the real events were playing out, did you feel in control of your actions and words? YES

To expound...Absolutely, I was joking and laughing and of course stunned, but not in any way like in the post vision state in which I was consciously moving slower and more deliberative, I think for the rest of that day, but more from the wonder of it than from any change in motor skills. During the post-vision I think if a penny had fallen off the counter I could have caught it before it hit the floor, but I was in an unusually relaxed state.I didn't look away from the eggs. The counter was emptier than the day of the earthquake. In my dream no one was recognisable. It may be that my hearing was dumbed down considerably during the vision because when I came out of it the clarity of the sounds around me became clearer. I distinctly looked around at that time in amusement that everything was normal but I was stricken by the column of light from the morning sun coming through the glass door (which happens to be the only window in the place) and had the impression that Christ had returned and I could just walk out the door and meet Him.

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

The coorelation causation thing is important in you need to go through some logical progression that I'm having trouble applying to the reports of the supernatural.

This sentence concerns me. It concerns me because the definitions of causation and correlation could apply quite happily to something in the "supernatural". Neither term specifically requires the inputs to be purely natural, if the supernatural is part of your worldview. Which leads me to believe that you do not actually understand the difference between the two terms.

It's why I have asked you - over and over - to simply define what you understand the two terms to mean, and to explain how you would differentiate between the two.

Why don't you tutor me or direct me to some tutorial that most simply explains with examples the issue of coorelation and causation and how if might generate a fallacy. Examples of correct logical progression against those of that might be incorrect. Maybe then we can get this resolved. but as you can see, the supernatural might muddy that water that you prefer to be Cristal clear.

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

Wayne, when you talk about the supernatural, what do you mean? How do you define it?

The reason I ask is because it sounds like you're using it to refer to things which you can't explain. However, that's not a very good definition, because it changes depending on who's using it. So I'd like you to define it more precisely so that other people can know what you mean by it.

Please be sure to have read my examples of the supernatural before you ask ne a difinition of it. It seems that a number of curious people here want to question me on what has been written in the tread and havent read the accounts of the supernatural which are be basis of my argument. My accounts will define the term supernatural for you to the extent that I understand it. Read a number of them from the link below called waynesepisodes.

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

Please be sure to have read my examples of the supernatural before you ask ne a difinition of it. It seems that a number of curious people here want to question me on what has been written in the tread and havent read the accounts of the supernatural which are be basis of my argument. My accounts will define the term supernatural for you to the extent that I understand it. Read a number of them from the link below called waynesepisodes.

I cannot accept this as an answer, because what you are saying is that you can't actually define the supernatural. You can give anecdotes which mean 'supernatural' to you, but they won't necessarily have that same meaning for other people, because they depend on interpretation. For example, if you gave examples of things you found to be beautiful, other people might not find them beautiful, and vice versa. That's why we define the word beauty as something that gives pleasure to the senses, rather than pointing to examples of things we find beautiful.

If you can't define what you mean by supernatural well enough to put it in words, then you can't expect anyone else to understand what you mean when you say it.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

In 1642, a one-eyed man named George Spencer was accused of beastiality by his Puritan brethren. Because a one eyed piglet had been born, and he was accused of being its father. He was executed.

Your job, Wayne, is this. Though your thoughts seem less dangerous, you need to convince us that they are more grounded in reality and eminently more reasonable than the ideas of the above mentioned Puritans, 460 years ago. So far, you aren't doing too good.

It's fun finding bad examples to make your case appear water tight isn't it. You my friend are on a leaky pirate ship without enough buckets.

Wayne, that wasn't intended as an example. It was a comparison. And I was hoping that you could see that a) it was ridiculous for the man to die for the reason he did, and b) your reasoning, even though more humane and certainly not intended to be deadly, sounds identically strange to us. Your reasoning is not reasoning.

Sadly I will be gone for the next four days, which means I'll have a lot of catching up to do when I get back if this conversation continues at its current rate. I do hope something gets accomplished during that time.

Please be sure to have read my examples of the supernatural before you ask ne a difinition of it. It seems that a number of curious people here want to question me on what has been written in the tread and havent read the accounts of the supernatural which are be basis of my argument. My accounts will define the term supernatural for you to the extent that I understand it. Read a number of them from the link below called waynesepisodes.

I cannot accept this as an answer, because what you are saying is that you can't actually define the supernatural. You can give anecdotes which mean 'supernatural' to you, but they won't necessarily have that same meaning for other people, because they depend on interpretation. For example, if you gave examples of things you found to be beautiful, other people might not find them beautiful, and vice versa. That's why we define the word beauty as something that gives pleasure to the senses, rather than pointing to examples of things we find beautiful.

If you can't define what you mean by supernatural well enough to put it in words, then you can't expect anyone else to understand what you mean when you say it.

Have you read at least three articles? Yes, or no?

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

Sadly I will be gone for the next four days, which means I'll have a lot of catching up to do when I get back if this conversation continues at its current rate. I do hope something gets accomplished during that time.

I'll miss you parkingplaces.

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

I must've missed the part where you disproved all religions except yours. Mind pointing me to it?

The God that gives me visions said:

Quote

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12

And it's not a religion, it is a man. Jesus Christ.

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

There may be a few elephants standing on the tortoise elegantly balancing the load and the tortoise itself may be standing on the hood of an enormous cobra.

No need for me to speculate with false religions, my visions have a Christian context. Read my articles first. Then ask questions. Cold Eggs at Paul's is a good place to start.

I am not asking you to speculate, because you say you know. Knowledge is different from speculation.

How do you know that all other gods besides yours are false? Especially when people with other beliefs have the same kind of visions, messages, etc. as you do, just with a Muslim or Hindu context. And if you quote from your god's word, they can quote equally convincing passages from theirs. How do you know that your god is not the false one?

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Here is a good list of reasons (given by David Hume in the mid-1700's!) to doubt what Wayne is saying:

? There is no miracle attested to by a sufficient number of people of good sense, education, integrity and reputation.? Human Nature is that which enjoys surprise and wonder. We are inclined to believe unusual things unjustifiably.? Tales of miracles abound among ignorant peoples and diminish in civilisation. Such tales are often given to explain everyday events that do not need a miraculous explanation.? We should always look for a natural explanation.? To suppose that God caused something will always be speculative. We have no experience of non-natural causes.? Different religions claim miracles and religious experiences as proof of their veracity over other religions. The truth claims of these different religions therefore cancel each other out.

Not even going to start talking about the psychology of a religious experience on here, I reckon it's probably already been done anyway.

Logged

Quote

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

Not even going to start talking about the psychology of a religious experience on here, I reckon it's probably already been done anyway.

You are right to be careful and sceptical. All I can do is report, and in fact it is my calling to tell you of these things, and you can, by my manner of reporting them, make up your mind whether you should lend any credibility to it.

If you started from the beginning of this thread,(actually I came in on page SEVEN), and read through all my responses, and made sure to read the stories in the links of mine, then and only then would you be able to come to an educated conclusion of whether my evidence proves God.

I believe that after you have done so, you are going to find yourself in a position where to not believe will be the larger leap of faith. I was sent to this site to deliver this proof of God, the God of the Bible, and it is in a format to circumvent men's logic. Is it working?

« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 08:23:08 PM by WayneHarropson »

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

I read your article.You are going to need to write another one before I'm done with you. Were you here for my toothache? I mean, this is getting ridiculous, even though I'm not kidding.

Logged

The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something. He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald I write because I've been given something to say.*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodesHave Wayne Committed, Win a Prize! (V

I shouldn't need to reiterate that it's not relevant whether I or anyone else has read any of your personal anecdotes. Indeed, those anecdotes don't help, because you're citing things that you attribute to the 'supernatural', but that are explainable through purely natural causes. Indeed, it's usually easier - a lot easier - to explain how such things could have happened through statistical coincidences. I read several of them, yet I have no clearer idea of what you mean by 'supernatural' than before I read them (indeed, it's even less clear now).

That's why I'm asking you to define what you mean by supernatural, rather than relying on anecdotes. Anecdotes are not convincing unless someone already holds the same beliefs as you.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I was curious about this, as well. Upon first read, it seemed to me that Wayne's earthquake and Idi Amin "visions" had come from dreams while sleeping. Later, I realized he was actually referring to daydreams or perhaps even random thoughts, which pretty much eliminates any possibility of his stories being compelling in any way.

My interpretation of the meaning of the supernatural incident could be questioned I suppose, but my misinterpretation doesn't diminish the fact that it is a supernatural event.

Why don't you try this: strip away any commentary of what I think God meant by the earthquake incident, and tell me what the incident would have meant to you if it had happened to you.

Please Wayne, for the love of all you consider holy, stop referring to your unconvincing stories as "facts" and "evidence"! You have been told time and again by numerous participants in this forum that they are nothing of the sort. If you truly believe that you have been sent here to convert atheists via the undeniable truth contained in your stories, you are failing. Miserably.

You want to know what my interpretation of your earthquake story would be if it happened to me? OK, here goes:

I recently visited San Francisco, and being in a place so prone to earthquakes certainly made me ponder the possibility of one occurring while I was there, so I don't think your "vision" along the same lines was especially unique. The part of the story that is unique is that, in your case[1], the envisioned earthquake actually did happen.

Given that it is not unusual for those visiting SF to consider the possibility that they may experience seismic activity while there, and given that seismic activity is relatively common in the area, it is inevitable that occasionally a visitor who imagines himself in an earthquake will, in fact, experience one.

This is what happened to you. Nothing more. And absolutely nothing supernatural.

Which is the conclusion I, as someone who is not desperate to validate my own ego by being considered special by god, would come to if it had happened to me.

Also, it seems to me that if god is as angry about same-sex marriage as you claim him to be, he ought to be hitting SF with a major quake on a daily basis, right? Yet, somehow, he thinks letting a bunch of children get blown away is a better way to express his displeasure. Oh wait, that was because he's mad about school prayer! Sorry, I forgot. So the Aurora theater massacre was because of the gays, is that right? Man, we sure are lucky to have you here to explain the true meaning of all this to us, Wayne.

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

I read your article.You are going to need to write another one before I'm done with you. Were you here for my toothache? I mean, this is getting ridiculous, even though I'm not kidding.

Firstly I didn't write that for you specifically. I don't feel that I need to write another one, as the one I posted contains a concise discussion of most of the issues surrounding religious experience and miracles.

I was not here for your toothache, perhaps you need this man to heal it for you in the name of God.

If you started from the beginning of this thread,(actually I came in on page SEVEN), and read through all my responses, and made sure to read the stories in the links of mine, then and only then would you be able to come to an educated conclusion of whether my evidence proves God.

I read some of your 'stories' by viewing your past posts. I'd like to post an excerpt from your 'Dark Knight' miracle, where you claim to have predicted the Aurora shootings.

I was so incredibly enticed by the intelligence and craftiness of Jack Nicholson that I found myself bragging about him and praising the movie, only to wake up and realise that I ... quite frankly... had been had. My mind had been raped and I went along willingly. I was delirious for days. [...]

Satan knows what he's doing, Nicholson played a role in the Shining, which means Lucifer. You must not give too much credit to Mr. Nicholson, his inspiration is not necessarily his own.

Now I don't need to tell you that TV is just as bad, but I will try to impress on you that if you put little effort into screening your children from even the most common programs you are selling out to Satan. With a few notable exceptions, Television deserves the gas treatment.

(bolds mine)

From the above 'testimony' you have given, I think we can quite safely apply Hume's criticisms (explained in my essay) directly to your argument and testimony:

There is no miracle attested to by a sufficient number of people of good sense, education, integrity and reputation.

From your testimony, we criticise your good sense. From your spelling and grammar, we criticise your education. From your ridiculous claims and the fact that you go around handing leaflets to [people in Chick-Fil-a's (see link), we criticise both your integrity and your reputation.

To suppose that God caused something will always be speculative. We have no direct experience of non-natural causes.

To attribute your 'premonition' to God is ridiculous. It is more likely a co-incidence. We as human beings have a tendency to ignore false claims and big up our own correct ones. This is just a coincidence.

From the above excerpt (which is quite tame in its delirium), we can safely conclude that you are not sane. You are deeply steeped in Woo. We cannot trust your testimony.

Different religions claim miracles as proof of their veracity over other religions. The truth claims of these different religions therefore cancel each other out.

The fact you claim Jack Nicholson represents Satan (not only that it is an unbelievably stupid statement) and that God caused your story to mirror something 23 years into the future proves that not only are you making baseless claims then capitalising on peoples trust when they come true, but also you are also placing unjustified emphasis on your own God. You are attributing things to Him, when in reality there is no direct sign that it was your God at all. Not a single shred of your testimony, when examined from an unbiased perspective, could actually be proven to come from any specific God.

Therefore, you are just making assumptions. There is not a single iota of truth in your claims, except that you probably wrote that 23 years ago (even that can be questioned, as it is not dated). We know not how much else you wrote 23 years ago.

Would you like to tell us about the other stories you have written that never came true?

I believe that after you have done so, you are going to find yourself in a position where to not believe will be the larger leap of faith.

To take a leap of faith is not even logically sound. You cannot just take a leap of faith from 'I wrote a letter 23 years ago' to 'God Exists' through such spurious reasoning. The chasm to leap is literally so gaping, even Honey-Boo-Boo's Mother would fall in.